resto

1. 1220
Mr. TURNER. Probably is low .
Mr. W . May. And that included 607 circular memos and an un
known numberof other temporary memorandums containing directive
type information or instructions.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. May, a greatmany of those are really revisions
and reissues of the old memorandums, though, and should not be con
strued that the picture is as bad as that would imply .
Mr. W . May. When they come into the office, somebody has to take
a look at them , because they may be very important or they may be
a little less important.
Mr. TURNER. That is right. And it is so indicated,and those that are
merely rephrasings, new issues, new dates, things of that nature, we
indicate on the cover sheet the items that have been revised
Mr. W . May. Yes. I think it is apparent from the evidence that these
memoranda and directives are not always completely effective. Back
in December 1965, December 22, you, Mr. Turner, sent out a circular
memorandum to your regional and division engineers, setting forth
the latest thinking relative to design and construction concerning sign
foundations, overhead signs, information signs, exit signs, unneces
sary signs, signs on guardrail installations, lighting standards, road
side design , and, toward the latter part of your memo, you said , “ I
urge each of you to discuss these safety considerations with the high
way department for incorporating not only the designs being pre
pared for future contracts, but wherever feasible on existing con
struction contracts.”
Again , August 1, 1966, you sent out another instructionalmemoran
dum relating to safety provisions for roadside features and appur
tenances, and again you mentioned clear roadside cross sections and
elimination of nonessential supports and appurtenances, placement of
these supports and appurtenances, design of supports and protection
for out-of-control vehicles, provision for protective guardrail. And
again you said, “ On all new work every P.S . & E . shall be carefully
checked prior to approval of the four areas of concern identified in
paragraphs A , B , C ,and D above. Current projects which are not com
pleted shall be similarly examined and field changes made to conform
wherever practical.”
And yet when Mr. Prisk and Mr. Constandy went outand analyzed
projects opened after December of 1965 and August of 1966, they
foundmany,many features that could have been corrected during con
struction.
Speaking of communication, we are faced with this fact. In 1960 the
Red Book [indicating] - this is the report of the Special Freeway
Studyand Analysis Committee to the executive committee of AASHO ,
published February 1960.
This cameabout in a fashion not too dissimilar to the new Yellow
Book.
Mr. TURNER. It is the other way around. The “ Yellow Book ” came
into beingas a revision ofthe “ Red Book ” procedure.
Mr. W .May. Yes. The evidence would suggest that the “ Red Book "
was not followed to a sufficient extent over the last few years.
There was a black book in 1961, and that was " Freeway Opera
tions” prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, published in
1961,and was available to thehighway builder.

2. 1221
Mr.McCARTHY. What will be the color of the new manual, green ?
(Laughter.]
Maybe it is the color.
Mr. W .May. Well, there was a dark brown book, “ Traffic Control
Roadway Elements, Their Relationship to Highway Safety,” pre
pared by the Automotive Safety Foundation in conjunction with the
Bureau of Public Roads, published in 1963.
Therewas a light brown book,that is the “ Highway Research Bul
letin 81, HighwayGuardrail," published in 1964.
The evidence shows that these publications were not followed to a
sufficient extent,and now wedo have the “ Yellow Book ."
Mr. Turner, are the States allowed to open to traffic a Federal-aid
project without Bureau approval!
Mr. TURNER. Yes. Are you going to start on a new line of question
ing ? I would like to respond to those colored books you were talking
about.
Mr. W . May. Do you have some comments on the colored books?
Mr. TURNER. I think the colored books indicate that we are well
aware ofthe things thatyou are talking about, and havebeen working
on them . But the problem of communications that you refer to is the
nub of the problem , and it is to that that I was trying to allude in my
statement when I said that progress, good intentions, no matter how
good, are difficult to getapplied .
This I think is the reason why I think you find these conditions
still existing.
Mr. W .May. I do not think there is any question. We agree with
you. They have been sent out, all kinds of directives, bulletins, pam
phlets, and publications, but they have not been followed .
Mr. TURNER.How do we get them followed ?
Mr. McCarthy. Could I ask something on that? Could we pursue
this particular point of communications? This used to be my line of
work. Iwaswith a big corporation ,78 plants all over theUnited States,
and one ofmy jobs was to get the word down to the troops, because we
found frequently it got garbled . It can be done with the modern tech
niquesof communication.
Have you given somethought to this specific problem , and to devel
op some improved methodsof communication ?
Mr. TURNER . A great deal, Mr.McCarthy ; and I think we have had
some success. You must put all of this in the light, however, of the
relationship that the Bureau and the States have in this program .
The responsibility initially for getting these things done rests with
the State,and the State hasmoney of its own in connection with these,
and they may evaluate the proposals and suggestions there. And, as
I indicated earlier, decide that something else than that might be
the more desirable thing to do.And, as a result, they mightknowingly
disregard some of the suggestions in those varicolored books there,
using their judgmentto do so.
Now this explains a whole lot of why some of these things were
not done.
Mr. McCARTHY. You mean if the FederalGovernment puts in 90
percent of the money ?

3. 1222
Mr. TURNER. You are talking about the Interstate only. I am re
ferring also to the A - B - C system , in which they put up 50 percent
of the money.
Mr.McCARTHY.Let's just for this specific point stay with Interstate
where the FederalGovernment puts up 90 percent of the funds, and
the States can still, if they wish , ignore your recommendations?
Mr. TURNER. No ; they cannot ignore them if we choose to disagree
with their judgment. But we have to give respect to their views on
these matters, too. They may be right in some of their judgments,
just the same as we think we are.
I think we have to work jointly in achieving this objective. We
have to recognizethatthey have someresponsibility and some integrity
in the program , just as we do.
We do not have the authority nor the right, and I am not sure
that we should have it, to impose our will on the States regardless
of their feelings in the matter.
The program does not operate that way.
Mr. MCCARTHY.Mr.May.
Mr. W . May. In the final analysis you are faced with a problem
where the Bureau differs with the State as to hazardousness of a
particular item . Whose judgment must prevail?
Mr. TURNER . If they get the Federal-aid money, ours does.
Mr. W . May. If we reach a situation where in the Bureau's judg
ment a project is not safe enough to be opened to traffic, if a State
desires to open it, are they allowed to open it ?
Mr. TURNER. I am sure in a situation like that we could convey
our feelings to the State and ask that they not open it . And I am
quite sure the State would comply with that request. Ordinarily we
do not enter into the question about opening dates of projects.
Mr. W . May. Mr. Chairman,may we make those publications that
I mentioned exhibits 19- A , B , C , and D , in the order that I
mentioned ?
Mr. McCARTHY. Without objection, so ordered .
(Publications were marked exhibits 19- A through D and are re
tained in subcommittee files.)
Mr. W .May. Wehave some representative slides showing deficien
cies as they existed on some of these interstate projects analyzed by
Mr. Prisk and the staff. I would like to show those. Mr. Bridwell
and Mr. Turner, perhaps you can help us in explaining what type
of correction the Bureau will anticipate.
There is a guardrail that we have had explained to us. It is on
steel supports, no washer. Experts would suggest there should be
washers. It is not blocked out. It should be blocked out. No transition
wasmade overlapping the bridge pier, and it is too short.
Mr. Turner, is that the type of installation that would be corrected
on existing Interstate projects ?
Mr. TURNER. Yes.
Mr. W .May. And if it calls for extending that rail and overlapping
properly, the Bureau would participate 90 to 10 ?
Mr. TURNER . That is correct,on the Interstate.
Mr. W . May. You are concerned that the Bureau has already paid
for that installation and you are going to lose some of the work ?

4. 1223
300
2
1
Mr. TURNER. That is correct,because this is a different installationfrom the newer one that we are talking about.Weare certainly ex
tending and enlarging on a different standard the design that we
originally approved and paid for.
Mr. W .MAY.Mention wasmade of Highway Research Bulletin 81;
did that not make all sorts of recommendations that were not fol
lowed here?
Mr. TURNER. That is correct. But it was not a part of the official
original standard. It was a research report with recommendations
in it.
Mr. W .May.Yes.There is a large sign in a gore area and theexperts havesuggestedthat this is a hazardous installation, guardrail plus the sign. It is amassivesupport.
Van Buren St
Orange St
>
NI
I
S
LINN
BIURO
IR
IR
EI
II
TUNTUL
NI
VT
SU

5. 1224
You can see here. That isthe typeofinstallation thatmight now becorrected ?
Mr. TURNER. Yes. The correction there would be some sort of im
pact absorbing device, bumper or some other device in front of
that post.
RESP
23
22
.
OK
Mr. W . May. Suppose the State suggested that wemoveback down
this way and start an overhead bridge sign, and suppose that bridge
sign cost $20,000, would the Bureau participate 90 to 10 ?
Mr. TURNER.Wemight if we did decide thebridge sign was really
thenecessary correction for thatplace.
Mr. W .May.And if that installation weare looking at cost $8,000
or $10,000,wemight lose the valueofthat?
Mr. TURNER. I am sure thatmuch of that material can be salvaged
and used in some other location ; but I believe in a typical situation
of the kind you are looking at here, that we can correct it by usingthese impact-absorbing devices that I am talking about.
Mr. W .May. Have we used any ofthose impact-absorbing devices?
Mr. TURNER. Only on experimental basis in the laboratory
Mr. W .MAY. Here is a twin bridge problem . That could probably
bo paved over, but that might be expensive now . If it is not paved
over, it is hard to visualize what the correction might be. Will the
Bureau participatein thepaving overofthat?
Mr.TURNER.Iwould say wewould ; yes.

6. 1225
Mr. W . May. That green pole we see in the next slide is a steel light
pole, steel transformer base. We heard from the Texas people that
these can be corrected in some fashion now by lifting the pole up and
installing a flexible type base for $ 25. The Bureau would certainly
participate in that?
Mr. TURNER. Yes.
Mr. W . May. And that guardrail end points directly parallel to the
shoulder. If it was decided they ought to make other arrangements,
will the Bureau participate ?
Mr. TURNER . That is the kind of thing weare getting the States to
do,and weare willing to participate.

7. 1226
Mr. W . May. Again they have installed one, two, three different
types of barriers because of thismedian,because of this construction
of the bridge.
Mr. BRIDWELL. They wanted to makesure,Mr.May.
Mr. W .May. I am sure. That represents realhazardous location the
way itexists.Perhaps they could level that concrete parapet or median barrier
and carry the cable barrier through the structure and remove this
small piece ofguardrail we see in the right.Again, theBureau wouldparticipate in this ?
Mr. ÎURNER. Iwould think it should .
Mr. W . May. What do you think ofmy suggested correction ?
Mr. TURNER. That would be one I would want to look at.
ComCTSIAAL
!
FA
12K
.
Mr. W . May. This is a typical sign installation right along the
shoulder.Again, ifthat sign were to be moved elsewhere, the Bureau
would participate ?
Kearney 1
Cameron 30
EN
SUS

8. 1227
Mr. TURNER. Yes. That sign should either be moved back up on the
slopes there where it cannot be hit, or it should be moved to someother
location. It is not essential that you put that distance to destination
sign at exactly thosemileposts. It could be 2miles, 3 miles,or 17 miles;
itwould make little difference .
Mr. W .May. Yes, sir.
That is a similar type problem .
WEST
INTERSTATE
MONTANA
90
29DE
PVPEYVASSER
NYROSA
MARTES
ERALD
28
2
0
03

9. 1228
And I guess another similar type problem . These could be at least
placed on breakaway supports.
Mr. TURNER. They should be placed on wooden posts that would
break when hit.
VERDE
W
Mr. W . MAY. Apparently those guardrail installations were de
signed to protect the motorist from striking the center pier, and it
appears it won't quite do it, but this could be corrected easily with
not toomuch expense.

10. 1229
Mr. TURNER. That is the kind ofitemsthatweare promoting in the
States. And this is the kind of treatment that in many cases will
suffice, and this is why I say the cost of correction on the Interstate
System in my opinion will be relatively small in amount.
Mr. W .May. Oneof the real primary reasons why weselected the
roadside hazard phase as the first phase of this continuing inquiry
was the fact that immediate change could be brought about so it
wouldn'tbe incorporated into new projects,and it would be relatively
inexpensive to go back and correct someof the existing projects.
A better transition oftherail could bemadetothebridge here.
h
NT
23
1
B
This is a culvert headwall.What could be done with this?
Mr. TURNER.Knock off the headwall and put a grate over the openspace there.
Mr. W .May.Relatively simplematter to correct?
Mr. TURNER. Take some work and a little bit ofmaterial; yes, sir.
1
S
SY
B
280
ALLA
2
SIGN
WEBSITE
29.ZENTES
2014
EES
80NITOA
DET
UR
A91201T
ESNARRACENES
PUT
FENO
LES
FUL
ERRA
221
ERNA
87 –757 0 – 68478

11. 1230
US
KOT
OMMEN
TURI
TEN
Mr. W . May. We see quite a bit of this on someof the projectsisolated rock.
Mr. TURNER. A greatmany people, though, would advocate that as
being esthetically helpfulto the scene.
Mr. W .May. They apparently did on this project.But what wouldbe the Bureau's position ?
Mr. TURNER. În a case likethat one,nicely laid out, I would leave it
alone.
Mr. W .May.Leave it alone?
Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir.
Mr. W . May. If the State wanted to do something about it,would
the Bureau participate ?
Mr. TURNER. I think I would want to reserve judgment on that and
see what elsemightbealong in thesamepackage.
Mr. W .May. Wehave another group of slides, just a sampling, to
show how important it is when we go back to correct initialmistakes,
that wedo it in the proper fashion.
Mr. Constandy,would you help uswith these slides?
Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes.
This is the initial installation of guardrail in the gore area. You will
notice the gore is relatively flatand can question the need for guard
INDIANA
100 NORTH
52 EAST

12. 1231
rail. In this situation they have placed the guardrail there at a point
between the two legs of thesign,andthe sign legs I believeare 8-inchsteel beams.
This is the installation that was made initially.
136
Speedway
Clermont
L
P
K
MO
.
And thereafter there was a program to correct the deficiency. This
is at a differentlocation,but the sametypeofsituation,wherein,under
a program to bury and lead into the ground the approaching end of
the guardrail, you find this type ofsituation.Here amotorist, striking
in thatarea,probably has the samechanceofbeing seriously injured or
killed as he did in the preceding situation.
In other words, the corrective effort here actually did not correct
anything. This is, incidentally, under a program of $800,000 to im
prove the existing guardrail on the circumferential route thathasbeen
open so little time.
This was the older standard used on a project in Utah with speed
limit signsmounted as you see, each with two steel pipes embedded in
SPEED
| LIMIT
MINIMUM
SPEED
651145RENCONDITIONSRAI
L
14MC618SO.EXIT

13. 1232
concrete footings. They upgraded the standards on the new project,which is theone wevisited.
They replaced it with this standard,with the same signsnow held
up by a thicker steel pole,again mounted in concrete,as you see. This
still leaves something to be desired, particularly by the person whohits it.
SPEED LIMIT
31.
RE
IS
120

14. 1233
This is another view ofthe samepieceof guardrailwhich you sawearlier. It is 25 feet in length,aimed directly at the car,aside from the
other deficiencies. It is not blocked out, isn't anchored, certainly is not
long enough,has 12-foot spacing on the posts, and leadsdirectly into
the pier.
On a newer project we found this situation. The same25-foot section
of guardrailnow has an added 25-foot section,which slopes down and
is buried into the ground. The other end of the guardrail, however,
still ends at and leads into the pier. I question theadequacy ofthe improved standards here and the expenditure of additional sums ofmoneywhich doesn't accomplish thepurpose.
III
HIT
III
III

15. 1234
This section, 50- foot section, of guardrail approaches and ends just
before the concrete abutment of the bridge. It was installed initially.
Thereafter the State highway department concluded this should be a
longer approach section for greater protection to the motorist and
added a separate 50-foot section without joining them . The car could
still impact the end of the new guardrail or if it struck the face of
new guardrail, would displace it and cause itto strike thesame end of
the old one.
I call your attention to that other end of it where it simply goes up
to the concrete para pet without any transition to the bridge rail. This
is a situation which not only existed on all of the nine projects we
visited , but it is commonplace throughout the country. It is perhaps
the most typical installation thatwe saw . No protection in that transi
tion from theguardrail to thebridge parapet.
ILONA
.

16. 1235
This was one of the exceptions. On one bridge on the project inOklahomaCity, there wasan attemptto make the transition by setting
the guardrail into the concrete parapet for a short distance and secur
ing it with a 58-inch bolt.Wequestion the value of this installation.
10
OUSNE
OPOSTE
V
IV
SEO
N

17. 1236
Here is whatwesaw on someof thebridges in Utah,where a similartype of situation produced this result when it was struck. I would say
roughly half of the installations on the project in Utah were this
way, and I think six or eight ofthem had been hit with a result similar
to this. Attimes the bolt pulled through the slot in the guardrail.
At other times thebolt sheared. But,basically,it cameout to the sameresult.
This represents a new design standard. Both bridge and guardrailW -beam ,butthere wasno transition from onepiece to the other. Again
an attempt to improve the standard. They did carry the shoulder
through the bridgeand did changethe bridge railing.
VGTU
DETAL
3
CONNU
RO
ES

18. 1237
This is anotherbridge which carries theshoulders through the struc
ture.Notransition from theguardrail, in this case to a concrete para
pet bridge railing.
12
ESTRES
IL
M
On the newest project here they used a new standard to upgrade
their work. You find that they used here a rather nice aluminum
bridge railing which appears to be effective from the tests. But
again we have no transition from the guardrail to the bridge rail,
andatthe pointoftransition we stillhave remaining thatever-present
concreto para petattheendofthebridge.
Doesthathaveto be there,Mr.Turner,thatconcreteparapet?
NA

19. 1238
Mr. TURNER . Not in the situation weare looking at;no.
Mr. CONSTANDY. It doesnot add to the strength ofthebridge ?
Mr. TURNER. No; not in this case.
Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you.
Mr. W . May. I think, Mr. Turner, that that last group of slides
emphasizes the Bureau's problem when it comes to spending money,
going back to correct some of thebuilt-in deficiencies.
The Bureau would have to guard closely to see that the money is
properly spent. Do you have a comment ?
Mr. TURNER. The illustrations that you have shown are exactly the
kind that I was referring to in my paper, being the deficiencies that
we want to correct and the treatment that you have shown here is
obviously as unsatisfactory as the original, and we would hope that
that would be corrected satisfactorily in all of the projects.
Mr. W . May. Mr. Bridwell.
Mr. BRIDWELL.Mr.May, I would like to interject at this pointthat
at this stage of the game I have no idea how well it would work , but
I am hoping that this kind of situation can be prevented by the
manual that I spoke of in my testimony, which Mr. Turner referred
to, and to an earlier comment that I made: That while we have the
very fortunato privilege of sitting here and having the opportunity
to talk about this and see specific examples of the State highway
department maintenance men or maintenance crew that is sent out
to make one of these corrections— he is a lost individual unless he is
given very , very clear directions and hopefully illustrations of the
kind of thing that he is to achieve.
So I am not at all critical of any particular highway department.
We just plain — all of us— havenot done a good enough job of stating
definitely what we want to do and how you go about accomplishing
it.
Mr.McCARTHY. Have you given any thought to a slide film to sup
plement the manual? For instance , some of these slides could be in
corporated into, I think, an effective slide film .
Mr. BRIDWELL. I have given some thought to it, to this extent,Mr.
McCarthy, that I would hope that themanual itself would be liberally
illustrated ; but one of the things that I have underway now is how
we can upgrade and make more effective use of the graphic facilities
of the Highway Administration, not only for the purposes here, but
also in the highway safety program and a number of other areas.
I am personally a very great fan of graphics used to illustrate any
numberof different program policies and objectives.
Mr. W . MAY.Mr. Chairman , at our Chairman 's direction, we work
very closely with the new department and with the Bureau, and we
havealways gotten the utmost cooperation from them .
Wehave sat in at their originaldesign meeting. We get an awful lot
out of it. Wethink at times we are able to contribute something, and
wewould hope, with Mr. Bridwell's and Mr. Turner's permission , we
might continue to do something.
Maybe we can help spread theword .
Mr. BRIDWELL. By allmeans.
Mr. TURNER. You alreadyhave theinvitation, and I understand from
Mr. Kopecky, I believe it was, that there was already one meeting set
up, in one State, where you have been invited to come out and show

20. 1239
slides and make such other presentations as you wish to try to get the
message across to the lower echelons of the State highway department
organization .
I think that would be extremely helpful.
Mr. W . May. We appreciate that. Dr. Haddon, the other day
AASHO representatives testified here and they seemed to be upset
concerning the new standards that were recently issued. I quote from
Mr. Eugene Johnson's statement:
Wemake brief reference to the new highway safety standards issued on June 27
by the Department of Transportation . Only a week ago most of the State highway
departments had not yet seen these standards, and could not comment on them .
As a result, we requested sufficient copies from the National Highway Safety
Bureau to send to the State highway departments.
It seems they were late in getting the standards, and it seems that
they were not consulted with respect to the final draft of the standards.
Do you have some commenttomake ?
Mr. BRIDWELL.Mr.May, I wonderif Imay respond to that?
Mr. W .May. Surely.
Mr. BRIDWELL. I think several points need to be made here. One is
that following the instructions of the Congress, under the Highway
Safety Act of 1966, our statutory lines of communication with the
State is through the Governor or his designated representative.
In terms of the overall content of the highway safety program , a
number of State agencies, in addition to highway departments, are
involved .
So that we do not work with State highway departments in the
highway safety program in the sameway that we do in the Federal
highway construction program . Notwithstanding that fact, AASHO
as an organization in highway departments in the individual States,
was consulted at length , as well as many other organizations, in the
development ofthestandards.
The report which wassubmitted to the Congress on July 1 and made
available to this committee has in the front of it a chronology of prin
cipal events since the Highway Safety Act was passed . And I would
call to your attention that on September 15, in the old Department of
Commerce , the Under Secretary of Commerce met with selected State
officials concerned with highway safety and representatives of State
governments.
On October 7 the Secretary wrote to each Governor requesting
appointment of a liaison individual to work with the National High
way Safety Agency . In a number of instances, Governors designated
the State highway department of the individual State for this
responsibility.
On December 5 and 6 the Governors' representatives, the Depart
ment of Commerce, and the Highway Safety Bureau met with the
Governors' liaison representatives for a 2-day meeting to discuss
preliminarily draft or material to go into draft standards, and, of
course, in many instances the State highway departments were repre
sented.
On February 16 there was another meeting with the Governors'
liaison representatives and a long discussion was held on the detailed
proposals for the highway safety program standards.

21. 1240
Another meeting was held on February 21 with various national
associations interested in the highway safety program , including
AASHO.
Then on March 16 the Presidentappointed the National Highway
Safety Advisory Committee which had to be consulted under the
statute on the safety standards, and one of the members appointed
was a prominent official of AASHO.
On September 7 of this year letters were sent to all of the Gover
nors by the Highway Administrator requesting once again comments
on the draft standards that had been supplied to them in February .
And on April 25 and again on June 6 and 7, the Highway Safety
Advisory Committee met to consider the standards and AASHO was
represented at that time.
Now , I could go on and detail some others, but I would like to
specifically comment that AASHO as an organization participated
in a meeting on December 6 .
AASHO as an organization was requested to supply their comments,
suggestions, and so forth , on the draft standards issued in February.
AASHO was invited, as an organization, to attend a meeting of
the Governors' representatives in February.
And because we are not getting comments in from the States as
rapidly as we thought we should on the draft standards, we work
through the regional highway administrators and the Bureau of
Public Roads division engineers with the highway departments, to
get in their comments individually.
So I guess in termsof consultation with AASHO as an organiza
tion and with the individual highway departments, there were just
many, many instances and certainly many, many opportunities.
Now , relating to the specific point of their inability to get the
standards, the standards were adopted by the Secretary on June 27.
The same day or the following day two copies were mailed to each
of theGovernors, and the Governors' liaison men in these States,with
the presumption obviously that they would let each of the individual
State agencies interested in the program know what the standards
said .
In addition to that,we started over the next several days to mail 50
additional copies to each of the States for distribution among the inter
ested State agencies, and State officials, and that mailing was com
pleted on July 11.
In addition to that we supplied copies of the standards to a number
of organizations, including themotor vehicle administrators,and upon
the request of AASHO , furnished them enough copies for individual
mailings to the State highway departments.
Mr. W . May. I gather that you consider that A ASHO and the in
dividual State highway departments were consulted sufficiently in the
drawing up ofthese standards?
Mr. BRIDWELL. As thoroughly as it was possible to do between the
time that the Highway Safety Agency was organized , essentially in
November,and December,until theactualstandardswere promulgated
by the Secretary in June ; yes, sir.
Mr. W . MAY. Is it your intention that they will be consulted in the
future when any other standards are drawn up or revisions are made ?

22. 1241
Mr. BRIDWELL. By all means. As a matter of fact, at the AASHO
executive committee last month in Biloxi, Miss., AASHO was kind
enough to invite the Federal Highway Administration to continue its
participation in the AASHO Design Policy Committee through a rep
resentative ofboth the Bureau of Public Roadsand the National High
way Safety Agency, so that the coordination and the cooperation,
which has been traditional with the Bureau of Public Roads and
AASHO , will be extended to the Highway Safety Agency .
Mr. W .May. Thank you, Mr. Bridwell.
Mr. Chairman, I have no additional questions. We have onematter
with Mr.Kopecky which will just take a moment.
Mr. KOPECKY. Just one point. On Tuesday we discussed and intro
duced a chart which was entitled, “ Motor Vehicle Deaths Compared to
Total Estimated Vehicle-Miles Traveled .”
In that chart it was noted during the testimony, during the 6 -year
period from 1961 to 1966,miles of travel increased 22 percent while the
deaths increased 39 percent.
Since then we have received additional information as to the travel
estimate and the result of this new estimate is that during the same 6
year period the travel increased 28 percentwhile fatalities increased 39
percent.
This additional data is incorporated in the chart as it appears in the
record.
Mr. BLATNIK . Mr. Bridwell and Dr. Haddon and my good friend,
Mr. Turner, I know I speak for the full committee in expressing our
appreciation for the most informative statement presented here, and
for the facts and the splendid cooperation which wehave received from
all the agencies throughout the course of the preliminary work doneby
the staff, and the attitude as expressed — the positive and straight
forward attitudes.
The important thing from now on is to move forward to correct
things and to keep to a minimum , as Mr. Turner has stated, keep to a
realisticminimum the unnecessary hazards, potentially accident-prone
aspects that somehow or other have crept far too long into the con
struction of this system .
I have a concluding statement I would like to read thismorning.
Today we conclude the first phase of our public hearings on high
way safety ,design,and operationalefficiency.
This opening phase has been principally concerned with the prob
lem of roadsidehazards. The testimony has been explicit and far reach
ing. Frankly , it is an incredible story. It has established beyond any
doubt that, despite an available store ofknowledge from research and
experience, even ournew roadshave continued to incorporate into their
design and construction deficiencies from the past. The result has
been that our roadsides generally are a conglomeration of hazards
that are a danger to the life and limb of the motoring public.
It would be repetitious to recite here the nature and extent of the
deficiencies that have been identified by the testimony. They are seri
ous, they are varied ,and they are widespread.
We are cognizant of some basic and significant changes in design
which have occurred over the years and which have enhanced the
safety of the motorists. There is no question that divided highways
with controlled access and no intersections at grade, together with

23. 1242
improved sight distances and flatter grades have donemuch to make
our roads safer.
However, at this hearing we have been concerned with another
thing ; an aspect of design which has not had that same emphasis and
which offers considerable room for improvement.
No rationalperson could be unaware that the driver, whether as an
innocent victim or through errors of omission or commission, is fre
quently a contributing cause to the accident. As a human being subject
to all of the usual human failings, he is sometimes careless and fre
quently unpredictable.
In any case, we can safely predict that each year thousands of
vehicles undoubtedly will continue to hurtle off our highways out of
control, as they have done each year in the past. Reasons will range
all the way from bee stings, sideswipes, or blowouts to driver error or
fatigue. Whatever the reason , they are entitled to a second chance to
recover control, without being smashed against somemassive concrete
or steel object which in too many cases should not have been there
at all.
No one can challenge the fact that thousands of the deaths and
serious, permanently crippling injuries result from a vehicle leaving
the road and overturning or impacting an object which is without
adequate protection to the motorist. Too often the object has been
placed in his path by the same people who built the highway.
Wemust restrain ourselves from clutching for excuses which might
make our own role in the whole accident picture tend to appear less
culpable. It is not enough to point to the faults of the other fellow or
to take comfort in what good things we have accomplished . If we are
sincere and honest in our purpose ; if we really want to reduce the
ever-increasing high accident toll, often needless, on our highways,
then wemust face up to the realities of the situation, accept the facts,
and be willing to change. Wemust look up and broaden the scope of
our vision .
One of the significant problems that has been identified is a com
munication gap between those who know and those who are respon
sible for the design and construction of the roads. As a result of that
gap, the knowledge we have gained from experience and research
over the years hasoften been ignored in practice. Certainly it has been
available ; much has been set forth in a veritable stream of bulletins,
memorandums, and other papers that have issued each year from the
Bureau of Public Roads, AASHO , the Highway Research Board , and
other sources. The information simply did not reach all the right peo
ple. This communication gap is serious; it must be bridged .
Another problem is how to overcome inertia, or resistance to change .
Old designs of the type long discarded by progressive highway re
search and construction people as inadequate, cannot be justified on
the basis that, “We have always done it this way." Last year's stand
ard plansmust not be blindly relied upon for the design ofnext year's
road .
I think one ofthemajor changeswhich musttakeplace before there
can be hope of lasting improvement in this whole field of highway
transportation, is a reevaluation by highway departments of their pri
mary mission.

24. 1243
It is true that most of the effort and money spent by a State high
way department is for design and construction of new work and phy
sical maintenance of old work. In spite of this, the basic role of the
State highway department is not to construct highways. Highway de
partments are, in the final analysis, in the business of operating a
physical plant of highways.
If this philosophy of an operational concept of a total system can
clearly be understood , it would permit one to look at the highway
in a new light and more readily identify the needs of the motorists.
"Operation " means just that ; it is not the twin of "maintenance."
I have the utmost confidence that there exists the imaginative pro
fessional capability to attack these problems effectively, if an attack
is indeed mounted .
If the mindsof as few as, let us say, 200 of the appropriate State
highway department people could be imbued with the wisdom of the
operational concept, the seed would be planted and could be culti
vated in the tens of thousands of minds whose efforts can result in
drastic reduction of highway accidents. This should be a challenge to
the personnel of the Bureau of Public RoadsAASHO, and the various
State highway departments; their participation in the lessening of
human tragedy, grief,and suffering should be exciting and gratifying.
Wehave the opportunity to save many lives. Inaction or delay in
immediately taking full advantage of it cannot be tolerated. This
matter will be closely followed by the subcommittee while in addition,
during the months ahead, we continue to explore other important
facets of safe highway design.
Mr.McCarthy. The committee will stand adjourned , subject to the
call ofthe Chair .
(Whereupon, at 12 :55 p.m ., the hearings were concluded .)